Skip to main content.

7 Scale

Most submitters concurred with the background paper that urban design covered a range of spatial scales. Many submitters felt an NPS should apply from the largest scale (regional) through to the smallest (individual building). However, a few submitters did not agree with this approach, and their alternative suggestions are discussed below. Whether an NPS should apply to rural settlements was also an issue several submitters raised.

7.1 All scales

Most submitters thought an NPS should cover all spatial scales, in descending order: regions, metropolitan areas, cities, towns, neighbourhoods, individual spaces, and finally buildings. The reasons given were that urban design applied to all these spatial scales, therefore an NPS on this topic should address the full range. Many referred back to the definition of urban design in the Urban Design Protocol which specifically mentions all of these scales.

Submitters 60, 92 and 107 stated:

Successful urban planning and design follows good process and should be specific to the different spatial scales. This is from the sub-regional framework or metropolitan and town scale through to neighbourhood and site planning and building design. All these scales should be reflected within the national policy statement.

Most comments about spatial scale were at a general level. However, a few submitters specified what issues they considered should be dealt with at what scales. Submitter 49 identified:

Connectivity (particularly for public transport), density, integration of decision-making, public participation are urban design elements relevant at a regional scale. Design issues relevant to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity (e.g. rural-urban green corridors) and to the management of effects on freshwater catchments also have regional dimensions. Design for local character, mixed use, adaptability, and the quality of the public realm must occur at metropolitan, city, town, neighbourhood, precinct, street and individual building scales.

Submitters 60, 92 and 107 included an extensive list of issues they thought should be tackled at specific scales.

Submitter 63 considered transport issues should be dealt with at the regional level; accessibility, amenity and aesthetics at the city/town scale; community needs at the neighbourhood level; and liveability of common spaces at the individual space and building scale.

In addition to all these scales mentioned, submitter 111 considered it may be appropriate for an NPS to signal how the sustainability benefits of urban design contributed at a global level.

7.2 Specific scales

A few submitters did not support an NPS which applied to all spatial scales.

Submitters 7 and 68 stated an NPS was most justified at the largest spatial scales, and least justified at smaller spatial scales. Submitter 34 agreed, stating an NPS should not go below the regional level. That is, it should not apply to cities, towns or neighbourhoods. Submitter 87 mentioned a regional level would be best if the focus was on transport and land use planning. Conversely, submitter 88 stated specifically that an NPS should not apply at the regional level, only at the metropolitan, provincial and settlement scale.

Submitter 75 considered that an NPS should apply at the regional and city/town level only. Submitter 16 suggested three scales – village and town, smaller cities, and larger cities – with different guidance relating to each level. The subdivision, town or city level was supported by submitter 46, with specific emphasis on green-field and larger brown-field development.

Submitter 2 suggested:

It would be more difficult to apply the NPS at the neighbourhood level, as communities are diverse and have different needs.

A small number of submitters specifically mentioned it was appropriate for an NPS to apply to individual buildings.

7.3 Rural settlements

A few submitters mentioned that an NPS should acknowledge and address rural settlements. Reasons included:

…all built environments, including rural, are designed and should be designed well’ (47)

Urban design principles are also relevant to the appropriate design of new buildings and developments in the rural area. (79)

It is important that rural, coastal and infrastructural elements are incorporated. Urban design is not simply about towns and cities; it should address all manmade structures in the landscape. (43)

However, one submitter specifically mentioned an NPS should not apply to the rural area because they did not:

…believe that the NPS should encapsulate rural, semi-rural or peri-urban environments, as urban environments have different issues to these areas … We believe that these other environments are best managed under the Regional and District Plans as currently exists. (84)

 

[ |